Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 03:40, 8 February 2006

Brokeback Mountain received a peer review by Misplaced Pages editors, which is now archived. It may contain ideas you can use to improve this article.

Film Unassessed

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Film. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see lists of open tasks and regional and topical task forces. To use this banner, please refer to the documentation. To improve this article, please refer to the guidelines.FilmWikipedia:WikiProject FilmTemplate:WikiProject Filmfilm ??? This article has not yet received a rating on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.

Note: Please review the archives before adding a new topic. The topic may have been discussed previously.

• Talk Archive 1 — November and December 2005
• Talk Archive 2 — January 2006

Request for Comments: "lust" vs. "physical attraction"

Link to RfC page: Misplaced Pages:Requests for comment/Media, art and literature

Regarding this passage in the "Plot" section:

>Through it all, Ennis and Jack struggle with societal and family pressure, and their own fears that prevent them from fulfilling the love and physical attraction that captured them both during their first summer together.

Is the phrase "love and physical attraction" sufficient or does the word "lust" need to be substituted as per a user today? By all accounts, and as is certainly obvious to anyone viewing the movie, the two protagonists of the film are in love. Why is it necessary to replace "love and physical attraction" with "lust" except for reasons of a POV agenda that gay people can't fall in love? Comments requested. Thank you.

Note: the addition of "physical attraction" was my attempt to compromise, but User:Druidictus continued to revert and add the word "lust." Moncrief 21:25, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

Lust means physical attraction, no?--Urthogie 21:30, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

"Lust" carries more implied negativity than "physical attraction". The latter strikes me as an appropriate compromise.

Adrian Lamo · (talk) · (mail) · 21:34, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

No, not really. Lust is a vice (at least in a religious context), something purely carnal and without connotations of love. Moncrief 21:34, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

Lust has negation connotations; see dictionary.com ex. "self-indulgent sexual desire" and "sinful longing." It's unnecessarily POV. AUTiger ʃ /_work 21:36, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps the phrase can be refined – "erotic and companionate love", or "consummate love"? Love entails numerous aspects: erotic love, platonic love, familial love, et al. Lust refers merely to the former and has numerous connotations (e.g., even one of the deadly sins, no?), and excludes (even debases) other types which are arguably at play in BBM. My two cents ... E Pluribus Anthony | talk | 21:39, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

I suppose it appears clear enough to me that we aren't taking about platonic or familial love in this context, with the phrase "fall in love" earlier in the section. Moncrief 21:46, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

You and I may believe that, but it's never a bad idea to clarify or reiterate what are complex concepts. E Pluribus Anthony | talk | 21:51, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

Do you think "physical attraction" clarifies the sentence sufficiently, or do extra words need to be added? Moncrief 21:52, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

What's wrong with just calling it love? User:Zoe| 21:56, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

That would absolutely be my first choice and I think it is the best descriptor. I was trying to find compromise with a user who kept adding in the word "lust." My druthers would be to revert back to simply "love." ("physical attraction" tends to be obvious and a given when it's already been stated that two people have fallen in love - unless we want to go to the plethora of articles on here about love stories and add in "physical attraction"? :) Moncrief 21:58, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

That might do and I generally agree, but is it too overarching? Like I said, a rephrase might be in order. As above, even "physical and emotional love" or similar might do? Also, perhaps replace "captured" with "captivated"? :) E Pluribus Anthony | talk | 22:02, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

Feelings? I'm not sure you can fulfill love nor lust although it may be fun trying. MeltBanana 22:00, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

The objection, as I read it, was to stating that circumstances inhibited their love. Whatshisname was technically correct in that regard -- love is nominally intangible, can't be hindered, etc et al. It's probably obvious to anyone reading that the objection was just an effort to take the word "love" off a page about a fictional relationship between two gay men -- ie, agenda pushing by someone offended by love between two males.

That said, if it'll put an end to the back-and-forth over this word, I'm OK with "physical attraction" being tacked on, though it seems a bit silly -- we're not really here to quibble over the nature of romance, and I thought the original language was just fine. Adrian Lamo · (talk) · (mail) · 22:04, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

If there's consensus, which I'm not rushing, I'd like to go back to simply "love." As I said, "physical attraction" was added as a potential compromise, but it is a bit silly, and probably impossible to "fulfill." Moncrief 22:16, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

I agree with just "love". It's a love story, so it is understood by anyone who knows what a love story is what the word "love" entails. --Chesaguy 22:46, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

I'd support inclusion of "love" as standalone if you can logically address User:Druidictus' objection -- perhaps by changing "prevent them from fulfilling the love and physical attraction" to "complicate the love and physical attraction". After all, I doubt anyone would argue against the assertion that you can *complicate* love, thus neutralizing the objection that gave rise to the insertion of "lust".

Adrian Lamo · (talk) · (mail) · 22:51, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

In case it wasn't obvious, I am in support of just "love" or at most "love and physical attraction." I think Moncrief's comparison to Romeo and Juliet was a salient point; do we insert this type of semantic disctinction between love and lust in every love story? "Falling in love" connotes the physical as well as the emotional for most adults. AUTiger ʃ /_work 22:57, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

I also agree with 'love' and 'love and physical attraction' as a compromise if necessary. I think that lust is POV for the reasons stated above, and I think that 'erotic and companionate love' is equally POV. -- Adz|talk 23:30, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

While I prefer the simple term above as well, remember the proposals above were conciliatory attempts to address the multivaried (and perhaps ambiguous) nature of the term "love". Arguably, descriptions of any emotion are POV. E Pluribus Anthony | talk | 01:17, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

I prefer just "love", no "physical attraction". "Lust" is generally derogatory. I don't think it's really necessary to break the characters' relationship down into various components. For example, the article for Guinevere mentions her "love affair" with Lancelot, but doesn't say that it had both emotional and physical aspects to it. I also don't think it's particularly relevant to the movie or the article. If the movie was exactly the same, but these two characters never consummated their love physically, would it really be all that significant a change? eaolson 01:07, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

It should just be "love"-- lust has negative connotations in many contexts, and clearly in this one or there wouldn't be any dispute. "Physical attraction" is (though I understand the reasons it was offered) just a plain silly compromise that would open a question on all kinds of past and future articles. That this wouldn't even be a question were the film a depiction of a heterosexual relationship should make the POV agenda of "lust" clear. --ChrisLott 23:12, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

I agree with the comment above. It should just be "love". 18:37, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

I also like Adrian Lamo's "complicate the love that..." or just a revert to the original "fulfilling the love...." The "physical attraction" add-on attempt to compromise is really weak, the more I think about it, and should be removed at some point relatively soon I think, as there seems to be no consensus to keep it and definitely no consensus at all that "lust" is needed. Moncrief 10:40, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

What about something along these lines: Brokeback Mountain tells the story of Ennis Del Mar (Ledger) and Jack Twist (Gyllenhaal), two poor young men who meet and fall in love on a sheep herding job on Wyoming's (fictional) Brokeback Mountain in the summer of 1963. The film follows their lives over the next two decades and documents their complex relationship, which continues after both marry women and father children. Jack wants to try to create a life together, but Ennis, who is haunted by a childhood memory, fears being ostracized by his family or killed by members of the community if he and Jack were to live with each other. Often, they are only able to contact one another by sending postcards. Through it all, Ennis and Jack struggle with societal and family pressure, and their own fears that prevent them from fulfilling the emotion and feeling that captured them both, for their entire lifetimes, during their first summer together. 144.35.254.12 23:03, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

No, that sounds clumsier, more awkward, and less precise to me. And please don't change it again until we've had a chance to agree that consensus has been reached. Thanks. Moncrief 23:06, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

"Love". Just plain "Love". Love has a multitude of meanings which all fit in this context. "... Ennis and Jack struggle with societal and family pressure, and their own fears that prevent them from fulfilling the love that captured them both" is perfect BECAUSE it uses a vague term like love. One of the themes of the movie is what their love means. That is part of what I love about this movie, it makes the audience think about what love is. -- Samuel Wantman 00:42, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

We seem to have a consensus to revert back simply to "fulfilling the love..." Can we agree to change it back now? I don't necessarily want to be the one to do it because I responded most vociferously to the initial addition of "lust," but I think it's time someone change it back; this is pretty clear consensus. Moncrief 02:19, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

How can you have true consensus when you block the opposition out? The original sentence implied that the story characters were restricted in their love which wasn't true, they were only restricted in a sub group of the various meanings within love and that was the context that results in lust. This poor context still exists in the revised version.

This situation goes to show that Misplaced Pages isn't a real wiki database as there are factions that dominate public input. I changed the context of the sentence to perfect string and then find it being changed back to the one with less validity, then to be banned for 24 hours since I overrode a moderator from changing to the worse sentence, great isn't it. Druidictus 10:09, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

I don't know where someone misrepresented your words or comments (provide a diff perhaps?), but you weren't blocked for "overriding a moderator", you were blocked for violating a longstanding Misplaced Pages policy, as you well know, and you are misrepresenting the truth. User:Moncrief, the "moderator" you were disagreeing with received the same block for the exact same reason. --bbatsell | « give me a ring » 10:08, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

How could he User:Moncrief, as he's been posting. If he was blocked then I would agree it's fair, but there seems no proof of that. BTW I modified quickly my post previous, before seeing yours. Druidictus 10:12, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

His ban was 24 hours long, the exact same length as yours, and once his ban was lifted he could edit again, as could you. I provided the proof of his block in my post... it's a big long blue link saying "received the same block for the exact same reason". --bbatsell | « give me a ring » 10:14, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Well he must have had a different 24 hour time shift than I as he was able to edit after I was blocked. Druidictus 10:20, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Yes that is true. I blocked him about 50 minutes after I blocked you. Your case was clear cut, 4 exact same reverts. Moncriefs was somewhat different, and I discussed it with others before deciding, in fairness that you should both be blocked. -- Samuel Wantman 10:31, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

To get back to the issue of love. I don't understand how you can say that the only physical manifestation of love is lust. They were restricted to showing their love for each other publicly. Love is more than just the feelings you hold inside. One reason this movie was so effective was that it showed how difficult it was for them to hold these feelings inside. Holding emotions inside is one of Ang Lee's trademarks and a big theme in Chinese culture. -- Samuel Wantman 10:40, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

I am honestly trying to understand what Druidictus means by "restricted." He's using the word in an odd way, and I'm having difficulty understanding what he's trying to say. Can someone help translate if they think they understand? Moncrief 13:57, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

If I may throw in my two cents as well, I think saying anything other than "love" is silly, redundant, and (perhaps worst of all) plain old bad writing. The article for "Titanic" doesn't specify that Jack and Rose felt "physical attraction" for one another. There is no need to add this phrase as it can be taken as a given in a story about adults that "fall in love", and "lust" is just insulting in this context. KGiles 06:05, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

"$25 million in ticket sales"

imdb says 50.8 million. I went to the site of the quote and it's dated today. Is she talking out of her hat? User:Zoe| 22:00, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

$50 million + is correct. I just realized you were talking about an old quote on the main page. You're right that the quote should be dated because at the time the quote was uttered, $25 was might have been the correct figure, but isn't any longer. EDIT: I just re-read your comment. Really?? That $25 mln comment has been on the page a while. It's hard for me to understand how it could be "dated today." Moncrief 22:14, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

Whoops, sorry. When I clicked on the link, the date at the top of the page says January 30, but the article itself says January 17. User:Zoe| 22:23, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

I added this: This assertion was made on January 17. By January 30, Imdb was reporting gross sales of over $50 million.. I have no problem if somebody wants to reword that. User:Zoe| 22:27, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

Ah, well, I see somebody removed it without explanation. User:Zoe| 18:03, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Complete list of awards

This is misleading. It did not win the SAG Award for Best Male Actor. It was nominated. Nowhere is a nomination separate from a win. This list needs to be refactored. User:Zoe| 22:06, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

You mean put "Nominations" in a separate section rather than as a subsection? Because the SAG is listed only as a nomination, not in the Awards column. If your point is to make "Nominations" a wholly separate section and not a sub-section, I think that's a good idea. Moncrief 22:11, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

I skimmed right past the "nominations" section heading, it's the same size as the text surrounding it.  :) User:Zoe| 22:24, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

The list of awards is simply overwhelming — do we really have to list every single award that it was nominated for? In addition, I don't see the point of listing a nomination if it failed to succeed at winning the award, of course, unless it was a Golden Globe or an Oscar (have those nominations even become public yet?). Honestly, it needs to be sliced, and if no one decides to proceed to trimming it, I am going to have to do it myself. The thing about the list is that I've never even heard some of the award ceremonies listed let alone even realized that the film was nominated. Is one really going to want to know which films it lost to at a clip-ceremony held in Cameroon? I'm not so sure about this. Any suggestions concerning my thoughts? —Eternal Equinox | talk 21:45, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

Restored the awards section and the lead; I'm afraid you were just a bit too bold there Equinox. Remember, Misplaced Pages is not paper. WP:NOT We have room for the entire (encyclopedic, if you will) list of awards and nominations. Certainly any of the organizations or awards that are notable enough to have WP articles (as most do) should be kept. Also, before swooping in with major rewrites, please note the talk page conversations and debates (e.g. not 'gay comboys') and realize that the article was being tended quite carefully by regular editors before you happened on it. You started the discussion here (good) but acted before any responses (not so good). AUTiger ʃ /_work 22:27, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

I'm rather shocked at what you did, Eternal Equinox. Those sorts of changes aren't going to stand without substantial negotation and discussion here (and even then not, but at least you have to make the attempt). Moncrief 22:44, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

The lead section was rewritten because its writing was not to my liking — I am taken back that it was reverted in its entirety. I am considering whether or not I should revert it to what I had written. Regarding the awards, there are simply far too many listed, and some need to be trimmed or removed. —Eternal Equinox | talk 22:54, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

Your re-write was much poorer than the current version, both in terms of syntax and level of information. Moreover, why would we exclude awards won from a full list of awards? That is counter-intuitive. Moncrief 22:55, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

I do not believe that my re-write was poorer, IMO. The reason I wanted some of the awards delisted is because they take up half the article. If we wanted to nominate this for FAC, do you believe that other contributers would like to see an article that is made up of a huge list alongside an equal amount of information? —Eternal Equinox | talk 23:00, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

You've already been reminded that Misplaced Pages is not paper. Hash out your potential revisions here rather than unilaterally changing the article. It's been worked on by a number of people for a very long time. Moncrief 23:02, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

They are NOT, for example, cowboys. A better descriptor is the one in the article now. It's been worked on and debated in this Talk section. Read through it first. Moncrief 23:04, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

You seem to be missing the point. Also, I reverted to my previous edit only once, so please do not use the words "unilaterally changing the article". I've replaced the {{endspoilers}} tag that you removed without explanation, and wikified the information box. —Eternal Equinox | talk 23:05, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

They are not cowboys? I suppose that I've been editing the wrong article then or I completely misunderstood the film itself. —Eternal Equinox | talk 23:07, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

Please see the "Cowboys" section of this very Talk page for a detailed description of why "cowboys" was not chosen as the preferred descriptor. It helps if you actually read through Talk pages before making major changes. Moncrief 23:10, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

As far as I was aware of, they were cowboys. But I'm not going to attempt to make any changes or compromise right now; that will come later. For now, I've submitted this article to peer review as I believe that it needs it. —Eternal Equinox | talk 23:13, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

Did you even bother reading the old comments? I used to work on a cattle ranch, and the distinctive thing about cowboys is that they work with COWS. Annie Proulx herself said they were not cowboys, except in the general sense in which most people in the West are somewhat caught up in the cowboy myth. But these were low-level ranch hands working on a sheep herding ranch. They were closer to shepherds than cowboys.

But if you had bothered reading anything before acting, you would have known that. Also, it's extremely childish and un-Wiki to retaliate against individuals who reverted your ignorant changes by flagging an article. I hope that doesn't sound ad hominem, I'm just trying to be descriptive.Aroundthewayboy 18:49, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Is there a way to possibly shorten the article without interfering with the presence of the list of awards and nominations? I'd be happy to compromise if there is. —Eternal Equinox | talk 23:19, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

I have made some minor changes to the lead section, including 2005 in film, which appears in other film articles that were released in 2005 (or other articles released in different years). —Eternal Equinox | talk 23:25, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

There are probably many hundreds thousands of awards this film could (and may) be nominated for and win, and a line has to be drawn as to whether an award is notable enough to be listed here. I award this movie the "Nohat Film Of The Year" award for 2005, but my award is not notable and does not deserve to be mentioned in the article. I hope that everyone agrees that some minimal standard of notability has to be applied. I propose that we systematically apply a criterion that if there is a Misplaced Pages article about the award, then it can be listed. If there is no Misplaced Pages article about the award, then it should not be listed. This criterion is good because it draws a clear line between what should and shouldn't be included, avoiding endless debates about whether some particular award is notable enough to be included. Implementation is simple: awards that are redlinks should be removed. It is fair because it applies an external standard of notability—the Misplaced Pages standard for retention of articles. It is also robust because it is not subject to manipulation—if someone creates articles for all the tiny, unimportant awards, they will probably be listed on AfD and deleted. Nohat 07:10, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Also, another potential criterion, which I just thought up, which would limit the field of awards even more, but would ensure that important awards stayed present, would be to only include awards that someone who was involved with making the movie (director, cast, etc.) was present at the awarding of the award to receive. This would be harder to verify, but I think it is an excellent way to ensure that only truly important awards took up space in the article, creating better balance in the article. On a related topic, I think the article could use a more elaborated summary of the plot. Nohat 07:21, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Since no one seems to have any opinions strong enough about this to register them, I'm going to go ahead and remove all redlinked awards to this page. Nohat 19:01, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Here are the removed awards and nominations. If any of them become blue links, they can be put back:

Removed awards

Removed nominations

• London Film Critics:** Film of the Year, Director of the Year (Ang Lee), Actor of the Year (Heath Ledger), Screenwriter (Larry McMurtry and Diana Ossana)
• Satellite Awards: Outstanding Actor in a Motion Picture - Drama (Heath Ledger), Outstanding Actor in a Supporting Role - Drama, Outstanding Screenplay - Adapted (Larry McMurtry and Diana Ossana), Outstanding Original Score (Gustavo Santaolalla)
• St. Louis Gateway Film Critics Association: (Runner-up) Best Supporting Actress (Michelle Williams|), (Runner-up) Best Cinematography or Visual Effects
• USC Scripter Award: Best Screenplay - Adapted (Larry McMurtry and Diana Ossana)
• Utah Film Critics: (1st Runner-up) Best Actor (Heath Ledger)
• Washington Area Film Critics: Best Film, Best Director (Ang Lee), Best Actor (Heath Ledger), Best Supporting Actress (Michelle Williams), Best Adapted Screenplay (Larry McMurty and Diana Ossana)

Release date in lead section

SamuelWantman removed the release date information from the lead section. Could I ask under what circumstances? There are several films with "(see ???? in film)" in the lead section. Also, in my opinion, it would be a bit unusual not to include the release date as it supplies an important basis for the film's debut distribution to the general audience. Who disagrees with my statement? —Eternal Equinox | talk 00:02, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

I disagree with your statement. It's not the purpose of an introduction to be overly detailed and to provide non-essential information that is included elsewhere in the article (including nearby in the infobox). The "See:" stuff is also highly distracting, in my opinion. Introductions should be streamlined and contain just the most important information. The fact that the movie was released on a specific date in three American cities (which is what happened on Dec. 9) is not important enough to make it into the lead. If you really want a link to 2005 in film from the intro, it doesn't need a "See:" referent. You can imbed it in "2005" in the "2005 film" reference. Moncrief 00:05, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

I don't see this as a big deal. I did some previous edits to the lead paragraph to remove superfluous information that is covered elsewhere in the article. At that time, the lead paragraph had become four. The lead paragraph should cover the essential information of the film. Its limited release on a specific date is just not a very notable piece of information for the lead, and is already mentioned elsewhere. --Samuel Wantman 00:18, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

It has only been a few hours since I began editing this article, but I can already see that territory has been marked here. All right. You can edit the article without my interfering, although I will add information when the time is right or when something new is released to the press. Keep up the good work! I'll begin editing the other articles I have an interest in. I hope the peer review goes well and this article can become featured one day. —Eternal Equinox | talk 01:20, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Equinox, it's not about marking territory, it's about understanding that very active, high-profile articles have a history, often contentious, and over time reach an equilibrium. Those articles, including BBM, have regular editors who work to constantly improve the article and usually do so through well-justified edits, efforts to reach consensus, and often, cautious, incremental improvements.

Here, beyond the talk page debates over certain issues that rose to "controversial" status you'll find significant documentation in the edit history comments where, not infrequently, the change of a single word was accompanied by an edit summary of a dozen words justifying it. Changes like these demonstrate a pattern of editing where every word and every phrase is evaluated and considered in an effort to convey meaning precisely and without POV.

BBM editors are also on constant watch against vandalism and POV-pushing because the subject matter makes it a frequent target for both. To jump into such an article with major changes because "its writing was not to my liking" without adding prose that was obviously and dramatically better was inviting conflict (and a revert). That being said, I think I can speak for everyone in saying that thoughtful, well-considered editing is more than welcome. AUTiger ʃ /_work 06:34, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

more on award listings

In order to save space, I also propose that we use a compressed listing format, listing all awards for one association on a single line. Rather than:

Boston Society of Film Critics:

• Best Picture
• Best Director (Ang Lee)

Central Ohio Film Critics Association:

• Top 10 Films
• Best Lead Performance (Heath Ledger)
• Best Screenplay

Chicago Film Critics Association:

• Best Screenplay (Larry McMurtry and Diana Ossana)
• Best Score (Gustavo Santaolalla)

Critics' Choice Award:

• Best Picture
• Best Director (Ang Lee)
• Best Supporting Actress (Michelle Williams)

Dallas-Fort Worth Film Critics Association:

• Top 10 Films
• Best Picture
• Best Director (Ang Lee)
• Best Screenplay (Larry McMurtry and Diana Ossana)
• Best Cinematography (Roberto Prieto)

Director's Guild Awards:

• Director of the Year Award - Theatrical Motion Picture

European Film Awards:

• Best Director (Ang Lee)

Florida Film Critics Circle:

• Best Picture
• Best Director (Ang Lee)
• Best Screenplay (Larry McMurtry and Diana Ossana)
• Cinematography (Roberto Prieto)

We could have instead the following, which takes up one third the vertical space:

• Boston Society of Film Critics: Best Picture, Best Director (Ang Lee)
• Central Ohio Film Critics Association: Top 10 Films, Best Lead Performance (Heath Ledger), Best Screenplay
• Chicago Film Critics Association: Best Screenplay (Larry McMurtry and Diana Ossana), Best Score (Gustavo Santaolalla)
• Critics' Choice Award: Best Picture, Best Director (Ang Lee), Best Supporting Actress (Michelle Williams)
• Dallas-Fort Worth Film Critics Association: Top 10 Films, Best Picture, Best Director (Ang Lee), Best Screenplay (Larry McMurtry and Diana Ossana), Best Cinematography (Roberto Prieto)
• Director's Guild Awards: Director of the Year Award - Theatrical Motion Picture
• European Film Awards: Best Director (Ang Lee)
• Florida Film Critics Circle: , Best Picture, Best Director (Ang Lee), Best Screenplay (Larry McMurtry and Diana Ossana), Cinematography (Roberto Prieto)

Nohat 07:17, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Since no one seems to object (or care), I'm going to go ahead and reformat the awards thus. Nohat 02:18, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

I support this change. User:Zoe| 17:57, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Peer review response

In response to the peer review for Brokeback Mountain, I have changed the section headline "Reviews" to "Critical reception" and will be tidying the inline citations. In order for this article to continue along the path of progress, footnotes have to be created. —Eternal Equinox | talk 01:19, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

In the words of Rossrs (which was submitted to the peer review page):

"The awards list is excessive. In a year, nobody is going to care about most of them. Perhaps even sooner than that :-) Suggest breaking it off into another article and keep the major awards as part of a section here."

I agree. Something has to be done about the section. —Eternal Equinox | talk 01:23, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Meaning of this paragraph?

Can someone tell me what this paragraph means?

Journalist and political pundit Andrew Sullivan speculates that the Catholic Church now sees the power of the film as a threat in that it might lead Catholics to see the "affliction" of "deep-seated homosexual tendencies" from Church teachings as "deep-seated homosexual love" or "deep-seated human love" instead.

It makes it sound like the "Church teachings" of the Catholic Church have deep seated homosexual tendencies. I didn't know church teachings could have orientations themselves. -- Andrew Parodi 06:23, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

I think you're misinterpreting the (admittedly cumbersome) sentence. The way I read it, the "deap-seated homosexual tendencies" are seated in the homosexual person, not in the church teachings. Sullivans point is that if people view homosexual feelings in terms of love rather than lust, they may be more accepting of the lifestyle. --djrobgordon 07:18, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

That's what I figured. But I wasn't sure. It is a very confusingly worded sentence. I think it may need a rewrite. I'll work on the rewrite, if there are no objections. I won't tinker with the words in quotations marks, but that words the connect them. It's a good point that this paragraph makes, but the point isn't articulated very well. -- Andrew Parodi 20:36, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Okay, here's my rephrasing of the paragraph:

Journalist and political pundit Andrew Sullivan speculates that the Catholic Church now sees the power of the film as a threat that may change the perspective of Catholics. Sullivan speculates that Catholic officials fear that the film might lead Catholics to rethink whether homosexuality is truly an "affliction". Further, Sullivan speculates that perhaps Catholic officials fear that the film may encourage Catholics to view homosexual love as emanating from "deep-seated human love" rather than being a love based purely on sexual acts.

If anyone can improve upon this, please do. -- Andrew Parodi 21:03, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Piped links

To Moncrief: please see the piped links guidelines. —Eternal Equinox | talk 21:06, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

To Eternal Equinox: Having a year linked to a "year in film" article seems to be the norm in film articles. Having the year it is released linked to "year in film" does not seem out of line with the guidelines. Certainly, if it bothers you, you could have changed it to "released in 2005" which would not have been an easter egg. -- Samuel Wantman 21:14, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

I agree with Samuel Wantman. You are being silly, EE. Moncrief 21:18, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

November, a featured article, displays the wikilinks 2004 in film and 2005 in film in parenthesis, and not within a piped link. In the words of Misplaced Pages:Piped link: Please note that links to "year-in-x" articles (such as 2003 in film) should be labeled accordingly, and not with just the year. See Misplaced Pages:Manual of Style (dates and numbers), Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Music standards, Misplaced Pages talk:Music standards archive 1 and Talk:Bad Religion for discussion and further details on this. —Eternal Equinox | talk 21:21, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

I did not see your most recent edit Moncrief. You can revert if you feel the need to. By the way, no, it does not bother me; it is violating the Misplaced Pages guideline and I am only attempting to ensure that barriers are not crossed. Now, it's time to do something about that holy-out-of-this-world trivia section. —Eternal Equinox | talk 21:25, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

So rather than remove it, fix it, and then we'll all feel like we are working together! -- Samuel Wantman 21:34, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

I tried earlier to take a crack at putting all the trivia into relevant sections, but my changes I thought were not ideal, so I didn't make them. I would suggest changing the section "Filming locations" to just "Filming" and incorporating the anecdotes about the filming into that section. Also, add a section called "Cast and crew" with the anecdotes about people who were and would have been involved in the making of the movie. The Bush and O'Reilly comments can go somewhere in the "Critical reception" section, and the bit about release in China could go into a new section called "Release", which might be expanded to include more information about the release(s) or lack thereof. The trivium about the soundtrack can be removed as far as I'm concerned. Nohat 23:13, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

FYI, the images lacking fair use rationale were removed from the article. They can most certainly be restored once the rationale is completed. See Misplaced Pages:Images. —Eternal Equinox | talk 21:32, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Star-crossed

i suyppose the concept of "star-crossed lovers" is vague to you if you havne't read Shakespeare latelyHank chapot 06:26, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Friends, thank you for understanding that this movie is really an update of Romeo and Juliet, it's a wonderful movie, but the only difference is the lovers are male and the families are the wider society.Hank chapot 05:25, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

But that is a MAJOR, MAJOR difference. This film is actually very specific to the subject of closeted gay people, and the "star crossed lovers" angle is one played up by the filmmakers so as to attract the widest possible audience. I feel for the people trying to come up with ways to promote this story to middle America, but I don't think Wiki should play along with that. "A star-crossed lovers story," besides being a weak way of describing anything, unfairly simplifies this movie.

What is so great about the film is its truthfulness and subtlety; when I saw it, from all the hype and Ang Lee's own comments I was expecting something so much more obvious, like a gay Titanic ("a classic romance," bollocks). It's hardly even a love story, because they, or Ennis at least, can't allow themselves to love. There is always a self-hatred in there. Because of the film's high quality, I doubt it will work so well as a preaching tool to open people's minds. A homophobic person might well see it and come away even more convinced of their intolerant worldview; after all, Jack and Ennis' actions lead to nothing but misery for everyone. They value their love above all else. This makes them like Romeo & Juliet. But the essential difference is that they are adults with families. And because it's a gay love, society allows NO accepted outlet for it. Society has deluded them into wanting what they can't have-- the normal family-- and into trying to create it. But they can't fight their natures, so they destroy both themselves and the "traditional" family. Although it's obvious Twist is closeted from the beginning, it's up in the air whether Ennis is "gay" in the inborn sense. But it's clear he is in love with Jack. A clinical right wing appraisal of their actions would show them selfishly sacrificing everything to their lust. This is in fact a more accurate reading than the film's supporters will admit to. It's weird, the disapproving fundamentalist takes on this film (of which Stephen Hunter provided by far the best) seem to nail it better than the attempted liberal ones that miss the point. It's not a nice love story. It is all about sex, lust, and the destruction of families. Because living that kind of lie is all that society, and society's strictures as ingrained inside these men, particularly Ennis, will allow them. Brokeback Mountain is too realistic to provide an argument either way for "gay is good," it will just solidify existing views. But it's could be an argument that gay marriage is good for society. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.151.122.18 (talk • contribs) 03:20, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

Unprotect?

Considering the degree of vandalism to some articles on Misplaced Pages, it seems rather odd tha this one has been protected for a few juvenile changes tonight. Enough people have their eye on this article that I think it can be safely unprotected - as long as we aren't shy about blocking repeat vandals. Moncrief 07:46, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

Note posted at 20:15 (CST), 5 February 2006: Oh, I see that either the davecullen.com forum people or some other don't want any other Brokeback Mountain (movie and/or short story) forums or discussion groups listed here. My Yahoo Group http://groups.yahoo.com/group/BrokebackMountain_Story_GayDiscussion/ was removed.

I removed the yahoo group. I'm tempted to remove the davecullen group as well. If there is a discussion group linked, I don't think it should be an age restricted group that requires membership before you can see any postings. The problem with linking any discussion group is that if one is there, all the others want to be posted as well. -- Samuel Wantman 19:53, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

"Matthew Shepard style gay bashing episode"

I think this should be taken out of the plot summary, because it's very ambiguous how Jack actually died. Ennis imagines the worst, but that's not necessarily what happened. Whoever wrote it is presenting their personal interpretation as fact, which is maybe Original Research.

Also, the short story predated Shepard's murder, so if the implication was that the story was influenced by that other Wyoming gay tragedy, that's completely wrong.

I agree. I've removed discussion about the ending of the film. -- Samuel Wantman 19:49, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

I also agree. Good edit. —Eternal Equinox | talk 00:06, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

Both wrong. Please go back and watch the movie. During the flashack scene, the one of the men brandishing the tire iron is the man Jack met out with his wife (with a beard) who invited Jack to his cabin on the woods. It is highly doubtful Ennis knew what this person looked like or could image his appearance to this degree of accuracy. The face of the victim is also Jack. What can be inferred from this scene is that Jack went and met this person only to walk into a trap to entice amd murder him because he was gay. We are being shown a flashback of what really happened, not Ennis' imagination. The entire movie reverberates with the Matthew Shepard incident. The movies opens with Ennis recounting a story of his father bruttally murdering two gay men, he lives in fear of it, and it happens to Jack. It's a notable theme in the movie, and one clearly put their intentionally by the writers and director. Waya sahoni 03:00, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

No, you are the one who is wrong. The film has nothing to do with the Matthew Shepard case.

Never said it did, I said Matthew Shepard-like. Go read it kiddo. 67.177.11.129 03:35, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

And if you actually read into the scene, it is never explicitally said, "This is how Jack died". It is not known whether this is his imagination, or flashes of the actual event. That's the beauty of it, it's up to the viewer on how they read it. But more broadly, yes, it's possible (if not probable) that Jack was assaulted which led to his death, but it's not the place of a Wikipedian article to say so.

Why not? Misplaced Pages articles say all sorts of things. 67.177.11.129 03:35, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

That would be for the filmakers or a film essay.

The film essay specifically says this is the case. I doubt you've read it. 67.177.11.129 03:35, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

Frankly, I find an allusion to Matthew Shepard case in the article to be misrepresenting the plot of the story and additionally, not a worldwide applicable comparasion čĥàñľōŕď 03:14, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

Again, wrong. The short story was modified, the director used the Shepard incident to garner attention and allegory to boost sales and audience attendance. 67.177.11.129 03:35, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

Cleanup Controversies

I've tagged the controversies section for cleanup, because at the moment it reads like a long diatribe of problems specific groups have had with the film. Yes, there was a lot of controvesy surrounding the film but surely it can be put in a more succinct and clear format. čĥàñľōŕď 03:28, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

• Old requests for peer review
• Unassessed film articles
• WikiProject Film articles